Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

[rogozhin]

The only thing that Paul and Yoko seem to agree upon is bleeding Apple Computers bank

It seems, since that last Ringo Starr LP "Blast From Your Past" was released way back in late 1975 (1975 was the last year that Apple Corps has effectively issued any new material), that Apple Corps primary functions have been to re-release their back catalogue in CD format and to sue Apple Computers, Inc:

Trademark dispute with Apple Corps -- (from wikipedia)


In 1981 Apple Corps, i.e. The Beatles filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps for using the name in contexts not associated with music. This amount has been estimated to $50 - $200 million.


In 1989 Apple added MIDI capabilities to its computers, and Apple Corps sued and won again, with Apple Computer paying $26.5 million in damages. At this time, an Apple employee added a system sound called "xylophone" to the Macintosh operating system, but was forced by the legal department to change the name. It was changed to "sosumi", which was told to be Japanese for "the absence of musicality", but actually should be read out as so sue me.


In September 2003 Apple were sued by Apple Corps again, this time for introducing iTunes and the iPod, both clearly positioned in the music market where Apple Corps own the trademark.​

Considering how much damage was done by people actually involved with the day-to-day operations of Apple Corps back in the late sixties and early seventies, I'm not sure if it's more amazing that they still exist, or that they still think of themselves as a relevant player in the music industry. An audit of their books will show that they have less claim to the act of actually creating, producing and distributing anything that could be considered music since the formation of Apple Computers, back in April 1976 (sorry, reheating leftovers and casseroles isn't being relevant). If Steve hadn't been so naive to think that the business side of the Beatles had any integrity back in 1981, we wouldn't have this problem now.

This is a different Apple Computer than the moonbeam cupcakes Apple Corps beat up on the last two times; I'm sure that Steve won't let them get away with the store (pun intedned) without getting something of value in return.

{Of course, all of this is just personal opinion and general speculation, and I can't comment on specific matters pertaining to the pending litigation, as I am not privy to any information; unlike some around here, I'm not going to attempt to exhibit any finely honed legal acumen (developed from watching Law and Order marathons on TBS, I am willing to wager) on cases I know nothing about...}

 

[Loge]

I've been calling on this board for months for Apple to procure itself some content, namely in the form of a record label. Apple could control the rights to "Apple exclusives," control when the other download services get the content and for how long, and control the physical distribution of CDs.

I hope there's a deal soon.

The trouble is that Sony/BMG will do exactly the same thing and they have a huge amount of content already; exactly what Apple were concerned with then they lobbied against the Sony/BMG merger. Apple's business here is distribution of content, and they should remain focussed on that. One or two exclusive tracks is okay to promote the store, but if we get into labels signing exclusively to single stores, it will lead to all sorts of anti-competitive practices.

I don't see why Apple would want to get into physical CD distribution at this late stage. They are building a business around downloading content and the potential to grow that in new and interesting ways; rather than older technologies which are well served by others.

 

[BWhaler]

By that logic, I could start up the Coca-Cola Baseball Bat Company.

If coca-cola was a generic word or a common word in the native language, then yes, you could.

But since it is made up to surround a certain product, then no, you can't.

 

[Uragon]

I think the complaints of most people here, is the perceive greediness of Apple Corp., and I agree with them. Regardless, whether this is from a legal point of view. Why don't Apple Corp just stick to "Let it Be..."

 

[Porchland]

{Of course, all of this is just personal opinion and general speculation, and I can't comment on specific matters pertaining to the pending litigation, as I am not privy to any information; unlike some around here, I'm not going to attempt to exhibit any finely honed legal acumen (developed from watching Law and Order marathons on TBS, I am willing to wager) on cases I know nothing about...}

Wager whatever. There are several lawyers that post on this site including myself.

 

[Porchland]

The trouble is that Sony/BMG will do exactly the same thing and they have a huge amount of content already; exactly what Apple were concerned with then they lobbied against the Sony/BMG merger. Apple's business here is distribution of content, and they should remain focussed on that. One or two exclusive tracks is okay to promote the store, but if we get into labels signing exclusively to single stores, it will lead to all sorts of anti-competitive practices.

I agree, there would be a tendency toward anti-competitive behavior if the various labels released music only through their own download services, but I'm thinking about a model much more like network television. NBC Universal, Warner Brothers, ABC/Touchstone, etc., all make content that isn't necessarily distributed on their own networks.

Having content of its own would just put Apple on a more even keel with the labels.

The other view, of course, is that Apple could be a sort of clearinghouse/arbiter by NOT owning any of its own content, much as it is now. Sony/BMG, Universal, Warner Music, EMI and the indies all want their content on Apple. That makes a lot of sense too.

I don't see why Apple would want to get into physical CD distribution at this late stage. They are building a business around downloading content and the potential to grow that in new and interesting ways; rather than older technologies which are well served by others.

I only meant that if Apple owned some of its own content, it would have the right to control all means of distribution of the content it owned. CD printing/retail is just one part of that chain. At the moment, legal downloads have less than 10 percent of the total retail music market, so there's still a lot of opportunity left in CDs. That will lessen significantly, I suspect, over the next few years.

 

[MentalFabric]

On the topic of whether this has actually caused Apple Corp. any damage, try typing 'Apple music' in google and all you see is reference to Apple computer and the iTMS. They do have a point, unfortunately.

A lot of people have said that the Beatles were OK, but put out a lot of crappy songs as well as good ones - I'd like to point that it was Paul who wrote the crap pop music... John was the one with talent. You can see the trend as they grew older, John developed, and the songs on their albums started to be a mix of lyrics with meaning (by John) and songs that consisted of mainly noises (c'mon - Ob la Di Ob la Da?? compare the lyrics of that monstrosity to, say, Tomorrow Never Knows, and you'll quickly spot the difference in writing styles. Paul seems to be writing nursery rhymes.)

On a random note, this is an excuse to mention that my Best friend is Sean Lennon's (Johns son) cousin. I think that makes John his uncle. Is your cousins dad your uncle?

 

[NokX]

lawyers and the us law

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

yeah...be glad...it's a joke.

this whole deal is a freakin' joke. apple corps is a music recording company, correct? apple COMPUTER will never be a music recording company. they make software and computers and devices. you'll never hear, "yeah, i got my record done at apple computer".

it's just a way for these money hungry %$#@ to milk the legal system. it's sad. now i don't even want to buy a new imac...i feel that my money is just gonna go straight to those beatle ******s.

 

[JJTiger1]

The Beatles? I've got their #1 Red Album CD, and loaded it into iTunes.

I don't see the problem people are having with The Beatles playing in their computers.

The Apple CD's/DVD's that I have include GarageBand. There are a few default tracks in GarageBand...
... almost as lame as The Beatles.

The Beatles should come after me for having their music on my Mac.
=-=
What's next on the legal suit horizon:
Anderson and Pella suing MicroSoft for product infringement: Windows.

 

[JJTiger1]

Oh. It's the name of the company that The Beatles are upset about.

Duh.

When was the last time you referred to your computer as an Apple?

Everyone who I know refers to their computer as a "Mac".

Maybe it's time for Steve to change the company name from Apple to Mac.

 

[wPod]

Apple computers is so named out of complement towards the beatles' company apple corps. they are in two seperate businesses. one makes computers one manages bands. apple computer does not manage bands, they simply are a music retailer. as far as i know apple corps is not a retailer of CDs. . . come on apple corps, youre just making your company look like a bunch of jerks!

 

[wiz7dome]

Restriction of trade?

I have not read all of the comments posted the lawsuit. However, has anybody brought up the fact Apple (computer) can fight to have that "settlement" set aside or ruled null? From what I understand, Apple may have a case with respect to restriction of trade. I understand and agree that a deal is a deal. But the underlying issue involved the Trademark of Apple. The settlement not to get into the music business came as a result of the trademark dispute.

 

[Laurent]

It doesn't matter if Apple Corps. can be confused with Apple Computer; they choose the name first. I can see why they would want to keep the exclusivity of the name, especially since Apple Computer is entering deeper into the music scene.

I can see Apple Corps. representatives being important shareolders, in exchange with the exclusive presence of The Beatles recordings on iTunes Music Store. Sony merged with Associated Television Corporation (ATV) back in 1995, that Michael Jackson bought back in 1985 to Dick James and Charles Silver, that owned 85% of the shares of Northern Songs with Brian Epstein (he died in 1967), that published the majority of The Beatles' songs. This isn't "Michael Jackson owns The Beatles songs" anymore.

It's not even "Sony owns The Beatles songs" either. Which explains why those songs aren't on Sony's online music service...

The key point here is that holding the publishing rights to songs doesn't really give the rightsholder much "power" over those songs. The rightsholder has some latitude in negotiating royalty rates and determining who may use a song in film or print its lyrics, but that's about it. The chief benefit to owning the publishing rights of songs is that standard publishing agreements call for royalties to be split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter(s), so owning the publishing rights to popular songs can be a lucrative form of income.

[...]

Another key point here is that although Michael Jackson receives 50% of the royalties generated by Beatles songs by virtue of his ownership of the publishing rights, Paul McCartney and John Lennon (and Lennon's estate, now that he's dead) have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs. Neither ATV's nor Michael Jackson's acquisition of Northern Songs changed that, and Michael Jackson does not now receive royalties that would otherwise be going to the Beatles had he not acquired the publishing rights to their songs (except that, obviously, if Paul McCartney had managed to outbid Jackson for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, he and Lennon's estate would be splitting 100% of the royalties rather than 50%).

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

So technically, Apple Corps' Paul McCartney and Lennon's estate could autorize the use of their songs on iTMS. How do you think The Beatles' Anthology was possible? Michael Jackson's will?

 

[anjaki]

These 2 make an interesting read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3610523.stm

http://www.lowball.com/WEEKLY/4-29-99.htm

I think it also has a lot to do with the original and extended registration of the trademark, Apple Corps long ago secured the computer rights of the name Apple regarding music and its production.

It's common practice sadly.

 

[Lanbrown]

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

It is believed that the original agreement said that Apple Computer would handle anything computer related and Apple Corp anything music related. Maybe Apple Computer should sue Apple Corp because they have a website, which would be computer related. It's a two-way street with plenty of gray area.

 

[Lanbrown]

Parts of that SORT of made sense, but not really.

1. Agreements don't have to be public to be enforceable through the courts. Otherwise, no one would make agreements without making them public.

2. Settlement out of court is an option whether or not the agreement is public.

3. I didn't even get the syntax of the last sentence. Maybe you could clarify.

It all made sense. If you read what I was replying to, it said a court found Apple guilty. The settlement was made out of court, so a court did not find in favor of anyone. Apple did pay money, but just because one pays money, does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Companies settle their disputes all of the time and the one that usually pays admits no wrongdoing and says the payment was cheaper then fighting the issue in court. I also know that out of court settlements are typically not public knowledge. I brought that up to show that a court didn't hear it. If they did, it would be public knowledge, unless there is a compelling reason to keep the records sealed.

 

[Laurent]

It is believed that the original agreement said that Apple Computer would handle anything computer related and Apple Corp anything music related. Maybe Apple Computer should sue Apple Corp because they have a website, which would be computer related. It's a two-way street with plenty of gray area.

A swing and a miss...

Apple Corps. doesn't offer a computer-related service. Apple Computer however, is offering a music-related service with iTMS. If Apple Corps. eventually distribute software, then it would be logical for Apple Computer to sue.

Come on, I love Apple (Computer) as much as you do, but you have to admit that there are now involved in the music industry.

 

[2A Batterie]

Boy, some people are really full of it on this link. I've seen so many posts about the Beatles' lack of "talent" and how they're not that good. While this opinion, albeit a laughable one is any musician circle, is neither right nor wrong due to the fact that it is an opinion, it has nothing to do with the topic! When posts do stick to the topic, the majority contain comments that defy all logic and rationale due to the strong bias of most people on this site. I would strongly suggest taking Apple Computers and Apple Corps out of the equation, and replace them with "Party A" and "Party B". This should have nothing to do with greed or if Paul is cool or not or if Steve Jobs is a scheming genius or a dofus. A court certainly isn't going to care about these opinions. I would bet that if the tables were turned in this situation, people on this board would still say Apple Computers is in the right.
Look at the intrinsic nature of the dispute: Party A (Apple Computer) broke its agreement with Party B (Apple Corps). In a hypothetical new dispute if you replaced Party A with some variable (say microsoft) and made Apple Computers Party B, then by most of theses posts' logic, Microsof would be right.
Basic point in a nuthsell: By saying it is ok for Apple Computers to break an agreement, or just even showing strong bias towards them, opens the door to justify many abuses.

 

[Lanbrown]

On the topic of whether this has actually caused Apple Corp. any damage, try typing 'Apple music' in google and all you see is reference to Apple computer and the iTMS. They do have a point, unfortunately.

Apple Corp has a DNS entry as a placeholder. How is it the fault of Apple Computer that Apple Corp has decided not to enter the computer era?

 

[Lanbrown]

It doesn't matter if Apple Corps. can be confused with Apple Computer; they choose the name first. I can see why they would want to keep the exclusivity of the name, especially since Apple Computer is entering deeper into the music scene.

Apple Corp cannot sue over the name. There are plenty of other companies that have the name Apple, as has been pointed out in other posts. If Apple Corp defended the name Apple from the start with every company that used it, they may have a case. When it comes down to one not defending their trademark, you lose it. In this case, there are other companies that have Apple in their name and Apple Corp has done nothing against them.

 

[Lanbrown]

A swing and a miss...

Apple Corps. doesn't offer a computer-related service. Apple Computer however, is offering a music-related service with iTMS. If Apple Corps. eventually distribute software, then it would be logical for Apple Computer to sue.

Come on, I love Apple (Computer) as much as you do, but you have to admit that there are now involved in the music industry.

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple Corp is loosely basing the name Apple on whatever they want, maybe a little bit of their own medicine will cure that.

 

[Laurent]

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple Corp is loosely basing the name Apple on whatever they want, maybe a little bit of their own medicine will cure that.

They... distribute... music... over... a... music... service... How obvious is that? It's a freaking MUSIC STORE! It's like Apple Corps opening a COMPUTER STORE... Even if they aren't creating software or hardware, it's computer related nontheless...

 

[sinisterdesign]

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. ...

don't get me wrong, the Beatles were a HUGE milestone in the modern music era, but that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? music and technology as we know it today wouldn't exist had the Beatles not cut some records?

back on topic...
so i know MJ gets a cut of the profits of Beatles sales (not litigation, i'm sure), but who makes the final call who gets distribution rights, i wonder. do paul & ringo's groups hash out which online stores get the rights and does michael have any say? for some reason these logistics interest me. what an odd mix of groups (and their lawyers): Steve, Paul & Ringo and Michael Jackson. now THERE'S a poker party i would like to attend...

 

[Laurent]

don't get me wrong, the Beatles were a HUGE milestone in the modern music era, but that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? music and technology as we know it today wouldn't exist had the Beatles not cut some records?

back on topic...
so i know MJ gets a cut of the profits of Beatles sales (not litigation, i'm sure), but who makes the final call who gets distribution rights, i wonder. do paul & ringo's groups hash out which online stores get the rights and does michael have any say? for some reason these logistics interest me. what an odd mix of groups (and their lawyers): Steve, Paul & Ringo and Michael Jackson. now THERE'S a poker party i would like to attend...

Read my post, or visit http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

 

[g4cubed]

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple...

True to a point. The iPod is by rights a storage devise, but introduced as a storage devise that held music that you can buy from ITMS, which is IMHO, is what the suit will be about. I still think Apple Computer foresaw this happening and this time the settlement will end this once and for all. As I stated in an earlier post, that's why the big bank roll that Apple Computer has on hand. It was/is to settle this and have a future in the music direction.